HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 I
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 11, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS TO
AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS; LANDS OF MATHIASON; 13850 PASEO DEL
ROBLE.
FROM: Suzanne Davis,Planner 5D
APPROVED BY: Curtis S.Williams,Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the recommended
conditions.
BACKGROUND
The property is located on the south side of Paseo Del Roble, at the corner of
Page Mill Road. The property was created as part of a 41 lot subdivision (Tract
5098 - Matadero Oaks) which was recorded in December 1973. There is a
conservation easement over the east end of the property. There is also a 10 foot
wide public utility easement along the Page Mill Road and Paseo Del Roble
frontages.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Ordinance, the
proposed project has been referred to the Planning Commission for review as it
indudes additions exceeding 900 square feet,and the height will exceed 15 feet.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 2.8 acres
Average Slope: 38.6%
Lot Unit Factor: 1.08
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Left
Devel. 8,100 11,381 11,513 -112 -3,281
Floor 5,400 5,394 4,477 +917 +6
Planning Comrriission
October 11, 199
Lands of Mathison
Page 2
Architecture &Site
The applicants are requesting approval of a Site Development Permit for a major
addition and remodel of an existing residence. Landscape improvements are
also proposed 4s part of the project. The house is presently two stories with a
three-car garage. Proposed additions total 1,019 square feet. A sunroom is to be
added near the southeast corner with a second addition,proposed at the west end
of the house. A new retaining wall will be constructed around the southwest
corner of the h Luse. A portion of this retaining wall will be the west side of the
house. An existing guest house and most of the wood decking will remain on the
site and a new wood deck will be built. Wood railings'will be also added to the
steps and decks to provide better accessibility for Mrs. Mathiason. Since the site
is already developed beyond the allowable MDA, some existing development
area will be renovedto offset the development area to be'added. The removal of
a play area,playhouse and some pavement from the driveway will result in a net
reduction in the development area of 112 square feet.
The height of the existing residence is 35 feet as measured from lowest to highest
point and 27 feet from the existing grade at the highest point. The highest point
of the west side addition will be 23 feet as measured from existing grade. The
additions would bring the total floor area to just under the allowable 5,400
square feet. A condition of approval has been included requiring a recorded
restriction stating that with this approval the property is developed to the
maximum allowable levels currently allowed by the Town. The recorded
restriction will unsure that this information is passed on to any future purchaser
of the property.
The existing hose is wood siding and trim with a wood shake roof. Proposed
exterior materials include vertical wood siding and wood trim to match the
existing, and a new fire retardant roof. The likely roofing;material is lightweight
concrete shingle in a brown tone, although the applicants have not made a final
decision. The a chitect has designed the additions to incorporate well with the
existing design. The applicants have not specified whether the exterior colors
will be changed Staff has included a condition of approval requiring approval
of the exterior colors in conformance with the Town's adopted color board if the
existing color is not kept.
ii
Trees &Landscaping
There are numeious heritage oaks on the site. None of;the oaks will be affected
by the project. The applicantsare planning to plant a number of trees including
three 48-inch box oaks. Existing trees and shrubs provide good screening of the
site from neighbors to the south and west. The house is visible from Paseo Del
Roble and Page Mill Road (l{eading up). The new landscaping is more than
adequate for mitigation screning. As noted on the plans, any areas that are
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of Mathiason
Page 3 �
disturbed during construction will either be planted or hydroseeded to prevent
problems with erosion.
Parking &Driveway
There is presently a circular driveway on the site. The driveway, parking and
turnaround area will not be changed except that a small portion of the driveway
at the right entry will be removed as noted above. The required four parking
spaces are provided in the three-car garage, and there is a fourth space in the
circular driveway.
Plan Review Comments
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended
conditions of approval, as specified in Attachment 1. Minimal grading will be
necessary for the project (29 cubic yards of cut and 23 cubic yards of fill). Final
drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies
will be required to be corrected,prior to final inspection.
The Town geotechnical consultant, William Cotton & Associates, has reviewed
several geotechnical reports and the development plans and has visited the site.
The applicant's geotechnical consultant noted that there is an apparent old
landslide upslope, southwest of the hous . The Town Geologist cautions that the
applicants should be aware of the potential for slope instability within the swale
area, and that if any movement is detected in this area in the future, it should be
inspected by a qualified geologist. The Town Geologist also noted that the
project consultant has recommended appropriate design criteria for the additions
based on available information (see Attachment 3). Condition #9 includes the
recommendations of the Town Geologist.
The Pathways Committee has requested that a Type IIB path be installed around
the corner of Paseo Del Roble and Page Mill Road (see Attachment 4). The
proposed location would have a guy wire across the path which is a potentially
dangerous situation. Staff has written the condition of approval to specify that
the exact path location be determined in the field. The Engineering Department
and the Pathway Committee can work with the applicant to locate a path which
will not be in conflict with the overhead wire.
No comments were received from the Environmental Design & Protection
Committee.
Staff is available to answer any questions from the Commission or any member
of the community.
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of Mathison
Page 4 , !
ATTACHMENTS:
! '
1. Recomm nded Conditions of Approval
2. Letter from William C 9 tton& Associates, dated June 27, 1995, 1995 (three
pages) ' {
3. Letter from William Cotton & Associates, dated September 29, 1995 (two
pages)
4. Pathway Committee tiecommendation(three page's)
5. Workshet#2
6. Development plans: topography survey, site plans, planting plan, floor
plans,el vations and roof plan(ten sheets)
cc: Gary& Karla Mathias n
13850 Paeeo Del Roble
Los Alto Hills,CA 94022
Tamara Kron
Abextra 106
106 West Campbell Av nue
Campbell,CA 95008
David Br tt
Britt-Rowe
16400 Englewood Avenue
Los Gatos,CA 95032
i !
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of Mathiason
Page 5
i
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A
MAJOR ADDITION&REMODEL AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
LANDS OF MATHIASON- 13850 PASEO DEL ROBLE
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be
approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. Any outdoor lighting requires approval by the Planning
Department prior to instalation. Lighting specifications shall be
submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check, if such plans will indicate electrical
installation to support new lighting. Lighting shall be down
shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent
properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from
off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for
two driveway or entry lights.
3. Prior to beginning any grading operation or construction, any
significant trees in the area of construction (excluding those to be
removed) shall be fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall be of a
material and structure to clearly delineate the dripline. Town staff
must inspect the fencing arld the trees to be fenced prior to issuance
of any building permits. The fence must remain throughout the
course of construction. No storage of equipment,vehicles or debris
shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees.
4. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce
emitted light. No lighting may be placed within the skylight wells.
5. Exterior paint colors, if changed, shall be chosen by the applicant
and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted
color board, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less.
Roofs shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim
area shall be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as
doors, columns, railings and trellises. Color samples shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to
painting the exterior of the residence. All structures shall be
painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final
inspection.
Planning Commission i
October 11, 1995 i
Lands of Mathiason
Page 6
6. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new roof.
7. A deed restriction shall be recorded stating that the floor and
development areas established by the approval of these permits are
the maximum allowable levels of development currently allowed
by the Town, and that any further expansion requires Town
approval. The recorded restriction will be prepared by the
P1aanning Department and shall be signed and notarized by the
property owners prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
8. Atl the time of foundation inspection for the house and prior to final
inspection for grading and hardscape improvements, the location,
and elevation of the new residence, hardscape and driveway shall
be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor as being in/at the approved location, and elevation
shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of
framing, the height of the structures shall be similarly certified as
being at the height shown on the approved site development plan.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
9. As recommended by William Cotton & Associates in their report
dated September 29, 1995, the applicant shall comply with the
following:
a. The project geotechnical consultant shall review all
geotechnical aspects of the construction drawings and shall
summarize the results in a letter which shall be submitted to
the Town Engineering Department for approval, prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
b. The project geotechnical consultant shall describe the results
of inspections and as-built conditions of the project in a letter
to be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior
to final inspection.
For further details on the above requirements, please reference the
letter from William Cotton&Associates dated September 29, 1995.
10. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must
be designed ads surface flow wherever possible to avoid
concentration or the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be
designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and
grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of Mathiason
Page 7
deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department prior to final inspection.
11. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan
shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No
grading shall take place during the grading moratorium between
November 1 and April 1 except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any
property line except to allow access to Paseo Del Roble and for the
removal of the existing paving adjacent to the right of way.
12. Any, and all, new public utility services serving this property shall
be undergrounded.
13. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner
shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's
NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control.
The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during
construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from
erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed
shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and
shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
14. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property Plowner for review and approval by the
City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The grading/construction plan shall address
truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and
pedestrian traffic safety on Paseo Del Roble, Page Mill Road and
surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials;
placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles;
and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash
dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction
debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage
Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the
Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
15. The property owner shall ,inform the Town of any damage and
shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to
pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways,
prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall
provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of Mathiason
Page 8
the roadwas and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building
plancheck.
16. A (Type IIB path shall be installed around the corner of Page Mill
Rdad and Paseo Del Roble. The location of the path shall be
decided on innthe field, to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department a d the Pathway Committee, prior to issuance of
building permits. The path shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
E igineering Department,prior to final inspection.
Upon completion of construction,a final inspection shall be set with the Planning
Department and Engin ening Department at least two weeks prior to final
inspection.
CONDITION NUMBERS 2, 7, 9, 13, 14 AND 15 SHALL BE COMPLETED
AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY
ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR
PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ALL OTHER
CONDITIONS 7UST BE S TISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.
PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, AND THE LOCATION OF THE PATHWAY SHALL BE
DETERMINED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS.
Properties resi ing within the Los Altos School District boundaries must pay
School District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills.
The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet#2 to both the elementary and high
school district effices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a
copy of their receipts.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval
date (until Octoper 11, 1996). All required building permits must be obtained
within that year and work o items not requiring a building permit shall be
commenced within one year and completed within two years.
• GEOTECHNICAL COP"LTANTS
*. William Co',..on 330 Village Lane(
Los Gatos, California 95030
and Associates (408) 354-5542
June 27, 1995
RECEIVED L3115
JUN 2 8 1995
TO : Suzanne Davis TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT : Supplemental Geotechnical Review
RE : Mathiason Additions, 13850 Paseo Del Roble
File #58-95-ZP-SD-GD
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the
permit applications for proposed addition cori'struction using:
• Floor Plans, Site plan, and Elevations (10 sheets, various scales)
prepared by Britt Rowe, dated January 15, 1995;
• Landscape Plan (Sheet L2, 20-scale) prepared by KRON, dated May
8, 1995;
• Engineering geologic Investigation (report) prepared by Baker-CEG,
dated December 27, 1993;
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by PGSoils, dated
December 29, 1993; and
• Comments on Geotechnical Investigation Report (letter) prepared by
PGSoils, Inc., dated May 5, 1994.
In addition,we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office files regarding
Mathiason, L3283.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct additions onto the west, southwest and
southeastern portions of the existing residence. In our previous review report (dated
May 19, 1994), we evaluated a proposed 'addition to the western portion of the
residence and recommended that specific structural and geotechnical plan reviews be
satisfactorily completed prior to issuance of building permits.
Because the footprint of proposed additions have been significantly enlarged
since our previous review, additional geologic and geotechnical evaluations must be
completed to address the revised sites of, proposed construction. The previous,
referenced Engineering Geologic Investigation (report) was specifically limited to an
evaluation of the previous western addition and as stated by the consultant, was "not
intended to address the implications of the geologic conditions on any portion of the
subject property other than the site of the proposed addition and the slope directly
above it". The previous Geotechnical Investigation (report) was also focused on
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
•
Suzanne Davis June 27, 1995
Page 2 L3115
foundation design requirements for the western addition and additional subsurface
investigation may be necessary as a basis for developing design recommendations for the
expanded addition footprint area.
SITE CONDITIONS
The portion of the proposed addition to be attached to the southwestern corner
of the residence is located directly below the axis of a steep swale with a probable thick
accumulation of colluvium. A lobate geomorphic feature, consistent in form with the
lower portion (toe of a landslide mass, was observed approximately 50 feet south of
the existing playhouse within the swale. Upper reaches of the swale are hummocky
suggesting active creep and possible previous landsliding. General site conditions have
been summarized in our previous review reports.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Supplemental geologic and geotechnical evaluations should be completed to
address the feasibility and necessary design measures for the proposed additions. The
potential for landsliding to adversely impact the proposed improvements should be
specifically evaluated by the project engineering geologist. The referenced Landscape
Plan illustrates several proposed walls, including Keystone type walls and terraced
retaining walls. In our experience, Keystone type walls may not be appropriate for
support of very steep native slopes (without extensive grading and geotextile
reinforcement), such as are present between the existing guesthouse and playhouse.
Appropriate design criteria should be recommended by the project geotechnical
consultant for all proposed retaining walls. A proposed site grading and drainage plan,
certified by a Registered Civil Engineer, should be prepared which includes information
to clarify the heights of all proposed walls. Consequently, we recommend that the
following conditions be satisfactorily addressed prior to geotechnical approval of the
proposed project design:
1. Site Grading and Drainage Plan - A proposed site grading and
drainage plan, certified by a Registered Civil Engineer, should be
prepared illustrating existing and final grades, necessary drainage
improv ements and the top and base elevations of all proposed
retaining walls.
2. Supplemental Geologic Evaluations - The project Engineering
Geologist should review the currently proposed development plan
and perform necessary site evaluations to address potential geologic
hazards to the proposed additions. The potential for landslide
failure to adversely impact proposed improvements should be
specifically evaluated. Conceptual mitigation measures should be
presented as deemed appropriate for site conditions.
3. Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations - The
project Geotechnical) Engineer should review results of the
supplemental geologic evaluations, the proposed development plan,
and perform supplemental site investigation (as deemed necessary).
The consultant should develop an adequate basis for preparation of
supplemental geotechnical criteria for foundations and retaining
walls. Specific geotechnical parameters, necessary for Keystone
wall design, should be included if Keystone walls are to be
constructed as part of the project.
William Cotton and Associates
Suzanne Davis June 27, 1995
Page 3 L3115
The site grading and drainage plan, and results of the geologic and geotechnical
evaluations should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and
Town Geotechnical Consultant,prior to approval of the proposed development plan.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
OSL/Le_C
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
Ted Sayr-a
Senior Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
POS:TS:rb
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CON°",TANTS
William Coi,t.on 330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030
and Associates (408) 354-5542
September 29, 1995
L 115A
TO : Suzanne Davis • v,-�,.
Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022 , ; /
SUBJECT : Supplemental Geotechnical Review �s��<
RE : Mathiason Additions, 13850 Paseo Del Roble
File #58-95-ZP-SD-GD
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the
permit applications for proposed construction using:
• Grading and Drainage Plan (1 sheet, 10-scale) certified by David Readler,
dated September 1995;
• Planting Plan (Sheet L2, 20-scale) prepared by KRON, dated August 18,
1995; and
• Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation (report) prepared
by PGSoils and Baker-CEG, dated August 31, 1995.
In addition,we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office files regarding
Mathiason, L3283.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct additions onto the west, southwest and
southeastern portions of the existing residence. In our previous review report(dated July
27, 1995), we evaluated proposed additions to the existing residence with a different
configuration. We noted that a portion of they proposed additions (i.e., to be attached to
the southwestern corner of the residence) was located directly below the axis of a steep
swale with a probable thick accumulation of colluvium. A lobate geomorphic feature,
consistent in form with the lower portion (toe) of a landslide mass, was observed
approximately 50 feet south of the existing playhouse within the swale. We
recommended that supplemental geologic and geotechnical engineering evaluations be
completed prior to approval of the proposed construction.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The referenced supplemental report prepared by the project geotechnical
consultant, along with the site grading and drainage plan, address all issues of our
previous review. The project geotechnical consultant has concluded that an apparent
Old Landslide is located in the broad swale to the southwest (upslope) of the residence.
It appears that the downslope portion (toe) of this landslide is located approximately
60 feet from the closest proposed residential additions. The project geotechnical
consultant points out that some potential exists for future reactivation of this landslide,
including the possibility for movement of debris down the axis of the swale toward the
proposed addition. In the judgment of the consultant, the site is geotechnically suitable
for the proposed additions with utilization of recommended geotechnical design criteria.
Recommended mitigation measures to address potential slope instability include special
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Suzanne Davis September 29, 1995
Page 2 L3115A
I
"free-board" requirements for new retaining walls intended to block and collect debris
that may wash down the axis of the swale.
The applicant should be fully aware of the potential for future slope instability
within the adjacent swale. Detailed characterization and in-depth slope stability
analysis of the apparent Old Landslide within the swale have not been completed and
would require the cooperation 4 the adjacent upslope property owner. The applicant
has the option to pursue such investigation if the current limited understanding of risk
associated with this landslide is unacceptable. In our opinion, the mitigation measures
recommended to address this area of potential instability represent a reasonable
judgment by the project geotechnical consultant based on available data. However, any
future instability in this swale noted by the property owner should not be ignored,
but should be promptly inspected by a qualified geologist to assess the risk and
determine whether additional mitigation measures should be taken. With this
understanding, we recommend geotechnical approval of permit applications for
proposed construction with the following conditions:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review- The applicant's geotechnical consultant
shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining
walls to ensure that his recommendations have been properly
incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town engineer
for re'riew and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and
subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations
and retaining walls 11rior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the
projea�t shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as-built)
project approval.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Sayre
Seni Engineering Ge o st
Ted ,,
Liam . otton
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 882 -
WRC:TS:rb
William Cotton and Associates
ATTACH MERIT
MINUTES OF THE
LAH PATHWAYS, PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING
July 24, 1995 y.
NOTES:
▪ Next Pathways Committee meeting is Monday, Aug 28th 7:30 p.m. Town Hall
ROLL CALL: Pathways Committee members: Les Earnest, Bob Stutz, Katy Stella,
Betty Rooker, Tom Griffiths, Kathy Freeman, Diane Barrager, Sylvia Jensen;
Planning Commission: Viole McMahon, Dot Schreiner Guests: David Kahn, Ray
Rooker, Barrie Freeman
MINUTES: 6/26 minutes questioned and approved as is.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Viole McMahon, as the new chair of the Planning
Commission, encourages connection with all and wants us all to be proactive
- Les wants to establish pathway standards that codify when to request a path
and when not to. Bill Siegel wants to establish legal basis for requesting a path;
he feels this basis should be stated in the General Plan.
OId Business:
- In lieu fees: Tom Griffiths gathered 16 samples of in lieu fees requested in
1994. Next, the town average cost for building will now be established. Using
this info, Les and Tom will put together a memo stating their recommendation
about in lieu fees. Pathways unanimously recommends that all in lieu fees go to
the Pathways budget only.
- Altamont equestrian/pedestrian crossing: In July Les wrote a memo to the
Town Council stating recommendations for alleviating the safety hazard of
crossing Altamont between Lands of Packaird Jr. and the Lands of Horton. Bob
Stutz recommends linking such a crossing location to a line of site ccnsideration.
- 12080 La Loma Drive - Lands of Powers: Pathways recommends a II-B path be
restored along Green Hills Court, including a path around the mailbox. Also, the
small pine trees growing in and immediately adjacent to the path she uld be
removed.
- 24990 La Loma Drive - Lands of McNees: Pathways recommends a H-B path
be constructed along La Loma. Also, Path ays recommends acquiring a 10 foot
easement along the West edge of the property and a 20 foot easement along the
South edge of the property. These easements will permit a future path to be
constructed just North of the creek, given that the creek and a steep slope are
along the South edge of the property.
- 13850 Paseo del Roble - Lands of Matbiason: Pathways recommends a II-B
path be constructed around the corner of Paseo del Roble and Page Mill Road, as
follows: there is a small tree near the power pole on the corner - it should be
trimmed back so it only has branches away from the roads; then construct a
path adjacent to Page Mill Road beginning about 45 feet from the corner and
going between the power pole and a large oak tree there, then around the small
Itree to a point on P seo del Roble that is directly across the street from the
pedestrian bridge.
- Master Path Plan Update: per Les, hopefully we will get access to computer
software that will handle this in ormation. Software is currently being tested.
New Business:
Town Pathway Mapeprinting: 7/22 Les drew up a draft of corrections,
additions, deletions that need to e made to the current Pathways Map. Dot will
review them.
- 27979 Baker Lane - Lands of Rouse: Pathways recommends that we acquire
pathway easements along the noithwest side of the property as follows: a 10
foot easement along the westernmost edge of the property next to Baker Lane (if
Baker Lane is a privte road, the, we need a path along !it) and along the
adjacent property boundary that runs approximately northeastward; a 20 foot
easement adjacent to the next bpundary segment in approximately a north by
northwest direction a� d a 10 foot easement along the 'next boundary segment
heading northeastward, ending a� the northernmost corner of the property.
- 13073 Cumbre Vista - Lands bf Wu: Pathways recommends that the asphalt
path along La Barrarica be restored as needed.
- Kingsley .Way Parcel A - Micko Subdivision: Pathways ; recommends a II-B path
be constructed along Altadena Dive and Kingsley Way.
- 13940 La Paloma Road - Reed Subdivision: Pathways ;recommends a II-B path
be constructed along La Paloma
- 12101 Oak Park Court - Lands of Lohr: Pathways recommends they restore a
II-B path along Oak Park Court s needed and that they also construct a II-B
path along Stonebroo Drive.
- 27435 Natoma soak - Lands of Geers: Pathways recommends they restore the
path along Natoma ai needed anthat it be cleared to a ,5' width
Presentations from the Flo r:
- Ray Rooker spoke bout the pa for. 13826 Moon Lane. On their Aug 5th
Saturday walk Pathays subseq ently reviewed this site.
- Bob Stutz verified that the De Anza Trail was to come; down Rhus Ridge and not
through Hidden Vill .
- Kathy Stella state that the path to Hidden Villa on Moody has been fenced
off.
- Betty Rooker note that several paths behind Bullis have become impassable.
- Respectfully submitted: Kathy Freeman LAH FAX: 941 3160
JUL-10-93 MON 09:23 $ ECS/SANCTUARY. 4i 321743 P.02
1
F.
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
h
i 51
I
��
11
. ,a o
D "c
flA *
0/.1/ ,•?-1 _tt._________-- .
I
I . ,
3
/1/ ,. --eis
. �,
MOW 1
/ .
/ .
tr
•
/ B 44i-r- 7o SCAI.—
••. A III ID,‘..a['roma 94022 • (415)941.7222 • PAX 0115) 941-316i1 0
PLANNING DEP (
`-,' .WORKSI EET in
EXISTING AND PROPOSED;OEVF,.LOPMENT AREA AND FLOOIZ.AREA
i
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • ,
nRorExzY OWNER'S NAME
• PROPERTY ADDRESS � � -t' ,��' t4 /36 0 _
CALCULATED BY 1 • O• jA
„ - b 0-/ �•U ------'
1. • Ji� � 0•I DATE ,.
(SQUARE FOOTAGE) 5
(Ca/cu1aM &v/pI. tt Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage (from,Part$ (Additions or Deletion::)
B• Decking _ __�
C. ... /, (o 52 Z . �o d
Ari vew
ay and Parking �� .�i 7l0 7:.
(Measured 100'along centerline) .:: ?, 9�8 .
D, Patios; and Walkways 3, Sb 4-
E. Tennis Court — 3
•
F. Pool and Decking .
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B)-:::',1011.1.. �.
��• Any ether coverage 0� � ,u�� • •^�jq0
loftier
2a 8 Za _
1)::10 LW TOTALS // �5 r '0
' Maximum Development Area Allo5cvpd, - M1)A (from Worksheet #1) 1.. , --11�, .'
2• Qni2 �►R 17 a .(SQL/ARE FOOTAGE) • 'r !��.,, f•P '
Existing Proposed P ; Total.'
A. House and Garage (Additions or Deletions)
a. 1st Floor 21 0 5
b. 2nd Floor /, l�/°f- .. �.�2__::;1.
c. Attic and Basement
I
B. d. Garage r O
Accessory Buildings ( 0
a. 1st Floor . (Pot) - :
. A.51-- ... .b
2nd Floor 10
c• Attic and Basement .4.
•
TOTALS. 44.1.7.. _Ls__9//417
woivMaximum Floor Area Allowed - 44 7
MFA (from Worksheet #1) 40 1
roWN
--- USE-.- ON.LY :CHECKED BY •(,(,Z til/1S . -- =
1,••tiseSi 12/09/9a DATE
SRL• MAC HD/ORIGINAls/PUNN1NC,rvor ' '
•
K,lied�_